• OzzModz is no longer taking registrations. All registrations are being redirected to Snog's Site
    All addons and support is available there now.

Site Performance - optimization workshop thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
When vbulletin saves photos, for example an avatar, does it wipe out any "progressive" settings that it may have had? Seems like all the avatars are overly large file sizes.
 
jimsflies said:
Here's the latest: WebPagetest Test Result - Dulles : captivereefs.com - 02/06/14 02:10:14

Where is the link on that site to get to the page that shows all the images (that you linked to earlier)?
Click to expand...
You click on that waterfall image, scroll down to the bottom of the waterfall, and you'll see a link that says "View all Images" click on that.
When vbulletin saves photos, for example an avatar, does it wipe out any "progressive" settings that it may have had? Seems like all the avatars are overly large file sizes.
Click to expand...
I assume it merely uses the image provided, because I have been known to optimize avatars and re-upload them, and the optimized image stays.

This is one problem with having avatars called - not only are the images loading you with kb, each one is also a database call!

You'll notice too, that although they appear small because they are scaled by the script, their KB load is not scaled. That is true of any image being scaled by the script.
 
Max Taxable said:
Is that last test result you posted, done with hooks on? You're improving!
Click to expand...

Yup...with everything enabled.

But I think now to get any smaller I will have to remove some things... I have two slideshows on the page. the top one I think will be removed once I complete the home page I am working on so that will save 7 images of 60-80kb each right there.

Your right about removing avatars for guests...its too bad those widget avatars can't be served from a smaller "avatar thumbnail" instead of scaled down avatars.
 
jimsflies said:
Yup...with everything enabled.

But I think now to get any smaller I will have to remove some things... I have two slideshows on the page. the top one I think will be removed once I complete the home page I am working on so that will save 7 images of 60-80kb each right there.

Your right about removing avatars for guests...its too bad those widget avatars can't be served from a smaller "avatar thumbnail" instead of scaled down avatars.
Click to expand...
Removing widgets and some Mods for guest view is a good idea - once logged in, they'll see those. You have to decide how many of the gadgets, gizmos, doodads and such actually help SEO and help with getting people to sign on, and which ones don't.

Here's 328kb of savings:

Pick Third Image you see.
 
Oops, I missed that one. That is the danger of using member images in slideshows.

Its going to be a constant battle to keep those pics optimized.

You don't know what the variable is to use avatar thumbnails instead of regular thumbnails by any chance? The template is using {vb:raw entry.avatarurl} I'm storing in the file system so I can't use \&thumb=1 to get the correct avatar directory (customavatar/thumbs).
 
I can't figure out why image #43 is still showing up on the test site. I had removed that entirely from the site. 163kb savings...on something that isn't even being used.
 
jimsflies said:
I can't figure out why image #43 is still showing up on the test site. I had removed that entirely from the site. 163kb savings...on something that isn't even being used.
Click to expand...
It's still being called in the scripts and still exists on your server.
You don't know what the variable is to use avatar thumbnails instead of regular thumbnails by any chance? The template is using {vb:raw entry.avatarurl} I'm storing in the file system so I can't use \&thumb=1 to get the correct avatar directory (customavatar/thumbs).
Click to expand...
Sad to say I don't. [MENTION=1]Ozzy47[/MENTION] might, if he should happen along.
 
jimsflies said:
Its getting better...here is the latest test:
WebPagetest Test Result - Dulles : captivereefs.com - 02/06/14 22:42:50

Still more than 1MB though. :(

The slideshows are easily the biggest culprit. Followed by the banner ads...I actually can give the ads a once over to see if I can optimize them more.
Click to expand...
Put a IF conditional on the slideshow. Make it logged in members only.

You're down to 69% of bytes as images, that's much better.

1.5MB total pageload, still really heavy.
 
jimsflies said:
Oops, I missed that one. That is the danger of using member images in slideshows.

Its going to be a constant battle to keep those pics optimized.

You don't know what the variable is to use avatar thumbnails instead of regular thumbnails by any chance? The template is using {vb:raw entry.avatarurl} I'm storing in the file system so I can't use \&thumb=1 to get the correct avatar directory (customavatar/thumbs).
Click to expand...

No I think that is the only way to display them, at least as far as I know.
 
jimsflies said:
I ditched one of the slideshows for now. I want it to load fast for members and guests.

Here's the latest... :)
WebPagetest Test Result - Dulles : captivereefs.com - 02/07/14 00:15:10

I made a couple changes to where things are loading...I think it "feels" faster now.
Click to expand...
You rolled up your sleeves and did some work! Congratulations!

I am convinced now however that you should be looking into a better host. The first byte time remains horrendous and I am beginning to suspect it's not your site causing it - it appears to be a way oversold shared hosting server - way too many sites on one machine. It's a pretty common thing to have happen.

What is your host and what "package" are you on?
 
Last edited:
My host is urljet. I'm overall pretty happy with them... I would give them an A+ for customer service. But I agree I would like to get more speed from the first byte.

I'm also considering signing up for MaxCDN...any experience with them (and vbulletin)?
 
jimsflies said:
My host is urljet. I'm overall pretty happy with them... I would give them an A+ for customer service. But I agree I would like to get more speed from the first byte.

I'm also considering signing up for MaxCDN...any experience with them (and vbulletin)?
Click to expand...
Actually on further review, I have never seen a vBuletin 4 installation grade out well for first byte time on the Meehan test we're using, no matter the hosting or even straight out of the box. vB 3 does... But never a vB4. So it would be pointless to change hosts or really even trouble your host with this - you're not going to improve first byte time enough to make it worth any effort. What, maybe a quarter second?

Even Ozzy's site here that is on very fast dedicated hosting grades out poorly on that. So I wouldn't sweat the host unless you're experiencing significant down time with it.

CDNs are overrated - if your site runs poorly on your host, the CDN won't help it to any degree. And if it runs great on your host, the CDN does even less. I used CloudFlare for over two years and in fact was one of the earliest Beta testers. It just doesn't help you anywhere nearly as much as optimizing your site does.

Alot of people try the "poor man's CDN" which is, delivering static content from a location on same server thinking that will help. Like let's say something like "CDN.yoursite.com." This does absolutely nothing and is also pointless if you're already grading out good on caching of static content. It's just bad advice any time it is offered, to do that.

Bottom line is if you're running well on your hosting, the CDN really doesn't do jack.
 
For comparison here's one of my v3 boards on cheap hosting and with some tiny jpg images not optimized.

WebPageTest

Site is heavily modded but also carefully so, but the deal is you start out ahead with v3 as it is - it's simply more svelte and efficient than v4, alot smaller presence on the server, alot smaller operating system. It would be VERY hard to make a v3 load a megabyte or more, you would have to be trying to do that.
 
CharlieDelta said:
As Max said I don't see a significant performance increase using my CDN but there are some benefits such as threat control.

Out of interest sake [MENTION=102]jimsflies[/MENTION] , I see that you are with URLJet. I am with them as well and with that CloudFlare is free. You can easily set it up in your cpanel with one click, seamlessly. :)

Here is my test results, WebPagetest Test Result - Montreal : [url]www.a...m/forums/forum.php - 02/07/14 02:43:31[/url]
Click to expand...
On same parameters used in the thread, there's still a little work for you to do:

WebPageTest - IE10

That's pretty darned good though for a vB4 loading 2MB on people's browsers. Two..... Megabytes.

The first byte time failure is due mostly to the bloated v4 database, that's a problem for v4 out of the box.

"Threat control" with CloudFlare is relative - otherwise you would be turning your anti-spam and human verification measures off. It's a wash really. You don't notice CF until it goes down which is way too often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top